A few weeks ago, before launching this blog, I worked with ChatGPT to develop a Misinformation Framework—a system designed to evaluate media sources and public figures based on the level of misinformation they spread.
Like most people, I consume news daily—watching broadcasts, reading articles, and scrolling through social media. These sources shape my worldview, but I began to wonder: How much can I actually trust the information I’m receiving?
This framework acts as a directional guide to assess how reliable a source is, how much of their content is spin, and whether they frequently engage in outright falsehoods. Instead of relying on gut instinct, I can now input a source’s name into my AI system, which then scans their history, evaluates past statements, and generates a misinformation ranking.
A high misinformation score doesn’t necessarily mean everything they say is false—it simply means their claims require closer scrutiny, additional verification, and critical thinking.
How the Misinformation Framework Works
To test its accuracy, I applied the framework to some of the most influential figures in media and politics. These weren’t handpicked names; instead, I built the system first and let it determine who ranked highest in terms of reach and influence.
Additionally, I refined the framework with insights from GROK 3, which suggested minor adjustments to improve how misinformation levels are categorized.
Misinformation Framework: Evaluating Influencers & Media
Purpose
This framework is designed to identify and rank individuals and media outlets based on their role in creating and spreading misinformation. The goal is to assess their influence, responsibility, and impact—whether they originate false narratives or simply amplify them.
Scoring Methodology
Entities are scored based on two primary categories:
✅ Originator Score (Max: 150 points) – Those who create misinformation (higher impact).
✅ Spreader Score (Max: 100 points) – Those who amplify misinformation (lower impact).
✅ Total Possible Score: 250 points.
Category 1: Originator (Max Score: 150)
Weight: 1.5x Multiplier (More significant impact than spreading alone).
| Subcategory | Weight (%) | Max Points | Max Weighted Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intent (Deliberate vs. accidental misinformation) | 25% | 25 | 37.5 |
| Narrative Control (Drives the narrative vs. reports it) | 25% | 25 | 37.5 |
| Reach (Size of their platform) | 15% | 15 | 22.5 |
| Scale of Falsehood (Degree of misrepresentation) | 15% | 15 | 22.5 |
| Verifiability (Ease of debunking) | 10% | 10 | 15 |
| Impact (Consequences of misinformation) | 10% | 10 | 15 |
| Total | 100% | 100 | 150 |
Category 2: Spreader (Max Score: 100)
Weight: 1.0x Multiplier (Still harmful, but often reactionary rather than intentional).
| Subcategory | Weight (%) | Max Points |
|---|---|---|
| Reach (How far their spread goes) | 25% | 25 |
| Frequency (How often they share falsehoods) | 20% | 20 |
| Intent (Knowingly spreading falsehoods) | 20% | 20 |
| Persistence of Debunked Claims | 20% | 20 |
| Impact (Harm caused by spreading) | 15% | 15 |
| Total | 100% | 100 |
Category 3: Dual Role (Max Score: 250)
If an individual or media outlet both originates and spreads misinformation, their scores are combined.
- Max Originator Score: 150
- Max Spreader Score: 100
- Total Max Score: 250
Example Calculation: Ron DeSantis
- Originator Score: 80/100 × 1.5 = 120
- Spreader Score: 70/100 = 70
- Total Score: 120 + 70 = 190/250
Top 50 Most Influential Figures in U.S. Media & Politics
This ranked list includes the most influential political figures, media personalities, and news organizations in the U.S., based on their role in originating or spreading misinformation.
| Name | Political Leaning | Role | Total Score (250) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Donald Trump | R | Former President | 220 |
| Joe Biden | L | President | 111 |
| Elon Musk | R | CEO, Tesla/SpaceX | 195 |
| Kamala Harris | L | Vice President | 105 |
| JD Vance | R | U.S. Senator | 130 |
| Alex Jones | R | Infowars Founder | 232.5 |
| Sean Hannity | R | Fox News Host | 217 |
| Tucker Carlson | R | Media Commentator | 192 |
| Rachel Maddow | L | MSNBC Host | 127.5 |
| Fox News | R | Media Outlet | 212.5 |
| CNN | L | Media Outlet | 159.5 |
| The New York Times | N | Media Outlet | 80 |
(Full list continues in detailed analysis.)
Score Levels & Meaning (0–250 Scale)
| Score Range | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 0 – 75 | ✅ Highly Reliable | Mostly factual, minimal bias, strong journalistic integrity. |
| 76 – 125 | 🟡 Biased but Mostly Reliable | Frames information with an agenda, rarely false. |
| 126 – 175 | 🟠 Unreliable | Frequently misleading or narrative-driven. |
| 176 – 225 | 🔴 Manipulative | Consistently distorts facts for ideological/financial gain. |
| 226 – 250 | ⚠️ Disinformation | Actively fabricates falsehoods for manipulation. |
Final Takeaways
This Misinformation Framework helps evaluate the trustworthiness of media and political figures, giving us a structured way to navigate today’s chaotic news landscape. It’s not about shutting out sources but learning how to question, verify, and think critically about the information we consume.
How do your most-watched news sources rank? Leave a comment below and let’s discuss.
🚀 Follow this blog for more AI-powered media analysis!
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment